Una comparación retrospectiva de dos años de los resultados clínicos entre la liberación abierta y la liberación...

Trigger finger is often found in adults, accompanied by pain, swelling, and limited movement. If conservative treatment fails, surgical release of the A1 pulley will be performed. Percutaneous trigger finger release is a new surgery method with rapid recovery that includes a good outcome, but there is also more reluctance to use this standard technique than open surgery. This article, therefore, presents a comparison of the long-term outcomes of both methods across different factors, similarities, and patient groups. The study hypothesized that the percutaneous trigger finger release had a far better result than open surgery.

Between 2012 and 2022, a total of 166 patients with trigger finger treated with either open A1 pulley release (n = 83) or percutaneous release (n = 83) were enrolled in the study. The outcomes were evaluated in both short-term and long-term periods. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire scores (DASH) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores before and after surgery were compared between the two groups for bleeding, digital nerves, artery injury, inability to bend the finger, and others at different points at a two-year follow-up.

Both groups of patients were statistically similar in age and gender. There was no significant difference in the number of DASH scores and VAS scores for pain between the two groups before surgery. However, the group that underwent percutaneous trigger finger release had a very low differentiation at three months. Pain scores and other variables returned to normal with no difference between the groups at two-year long-term follow-up. No significant differences were found in complications, such as traumatic pain, digital nerves, and arterial injuries, between the groups.

The study found that percutaneous trigger finger release in trigger finger patients was more practical than traditional open surgery in supporting their long-term clinical outcomes. This technique results in less pain and less bleeding, and the complications were not that different from traditional open surgery in two years.